However, a party whose negligence causes injury to another is liable only for those damages actually and proximately caused thereby. Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1979). A defendant is not liable for damages from an earlier condition or injury, not having caused those damages, except to the extent of aggravation or enhancement by the defendant's acts.

A plaintiff can recover for an increase in disability resulting from an accident , but not for [his] total disability resulting from the pre-existing condition plus the aggravation caused by the accident.McMurry v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 2003 WL 535918 at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2003) (emphasis added) (citing Haws v. Bullock , 592 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979) and Kincaid v. Lyerla , 680 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984) ). Accordingly, Dr. Burns' supplemental report need not show that Hudson's pre-existing psychological issues and behavior had "conclusively resolved" before the crash in order for Plaintiffs to collect damages.

Of the states that have considered this issue, the vast majority have held that if the jury cannot apportion damages between a preexisting and an aggravating injury, the defendant is liable for the total injury. LaMoureaux v. Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc., 632 P.2d 539, 545 (Alaska 1981); Newbury v. Vogel, 151 Colo. 520, 379 P.2d 811, 813 (1963); Maser v. Fioretti, 498 So.2d 568, 570 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1986); Bushong v. Kamiah Grain, Inc., 96 Idaho 659, 534 P.2d 1099, 1101 (1975); Lovely v. Allstate Ins. Co., 658 A.2d 1091, 1092 (Me. 1995); McNabb v. Green Real Estate Co., 62 Mich.App. 500, 233 N.W.2d 811, 819-20 (1975), superseded by statute on other grounds, Mich. R. Evid. 404; Brake v. Speed, 605 So.2d 28, 33 (Miss. 1992); David v. DeLeon, 250 Neb. 109, 547 N.W.2d 726, 730 (1996); Kleitz v. Raskin, 103 Nev. 325, 738 P.2d 508, 509 (1987); Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 559 N.E.2d 1313, 1324-25 (1990) (relying on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433B cmt. d); Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1979); Tingey v. Christensen, 987 P.2d 588, 592 (Utah 1999); Phennah v. Whalen, 28 Wash.App. 19, 621 P.2d 1304, 1309 (1980); Bigley v. Craven, 769 P.2d 892, 898 (Wyo. 1989). Only two states considering the issue of indivisible injury have rejected this approach.

In this regard, Pyle alludes to the "oft stated principle . . . that a tortfeasor 'must accept the person as he finds him' and the person injured by the tortfeasor is entitled to recover all damages proximately caused by the acts of the tortfeasor." Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. 979). In Town of Franklin v. Elrod, 140 Tenn. 228, 204 S.W. 298 (1917), the Supreme Court addressed liability in the context of the negligent infliction of an injury on a plaintiff with pre-existing conditions.

A tortfeasor "must accept the person as he finds him," and Mr. Lehman is entitled to recover for all of the pain and suffering he experienced, including the suffering that was increased by his previous medical conditions. See Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). The evidence preponderates against the Commission's award for his pain and suffering and the award is beneath the lower limit of the range of reasonableness established by the record in this case, giving due consideration to the factors identified in the cases mentioned previously.

Plaintiff would be able to recover in this case for the increase of her disability, but not for her total disability resulting from the pre-existing condition plus the aggravation of the condition caused by the accident. See Haws v. Bullock, 592 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. App. 1979). As noted the jury returned a verdict for $129,681.46 after hearing arguments of counsel wherein the plaintiff's attorney argued the future effect of the injury and the future medical expenses premised upon the speculative testimony.